LW jargon. Neither Asimov nor the intended audience would necessarily make that distinction.
The jargon introduction was yours, not Asimov’s or mine and your interpretation of his advice to be telling to people to ignore ethical injunctions is uncharitable as a reading of his intent and mistaken as a claim about the how the LW concept applies.
Not really once you consider where said intuitions come from.
Yes, really. I don’t know what you are basing this ‘consideration’ on.
An example of following Asimov’s advice would be someone with strong moral sense that homosexuality is wrong but a strong egalitarian philosophy choosing to overcome the moral sense and refusing to stone the homosexual to death despite the instinctive and socially reinforced moral revulsion.
The jargon introduction was yours, not Asimov’s or mine
Yes, and I was using it to be technical, you seem to be trying to argue that Asimov couldn’t have meant “ethical injunction” since he wrote “morality”.
your interpretation of his advice to be telling to people to ignore ethical injunctions is uncharitable as a reading of his intent
I didn’t say anything about his intent, I’m talking about how someone told to not let one’s “sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right” is likely to behave when attempting to act on the advice. As for intent I’m guessing Asimov’s (and apparently yours judging by your example) is to interpret “sense of morals” as [a moral intuition Asimov (or wedrifid) disagrees with] and “doing what’s right” as [a moral intuition Asimov (or wedrifid) agrees with].
mistaken as a claim about the how the LW concept applies.
I think you are the one mistaken. Remember the point at which an ethical injunction is most important is the point when disobeying it feels like the right thing to do.
Not everyone who speaks about morality automatically sinks down into nonsense and intuition, into the depths of accusations and praise for particular persons, however strange the language they use. Sometimes, speaking about morality means speaking about rationality, surviving and thriving, etc. It may be a mistake to think that Asimov was entirely ignorant of the philosophies this website promotes, given his work in science and the quotes one finds from his interviews, letters, and stories.
Not everyone who speaks about morality automatically sinks down into nonsense and intuition, into the depths of accusations and praise for particular persons, however strange the language they use.
I never said anything otherwise. My point was that Asimov was trying to make a distinction between “morality” and “doing what’s right”. The implication being that thinking in terms of the latter will produce better behavior than thinking in terms of the former. My point is that this is not at all the case.
Using a technical term incorrectly then retorting with “LW jargon.” when corrected is either disingenuous or conceivably severely muddled thinking.
you seem to be trying to argue that Asimov couldn’t have meant “ethical injunction” since he wrote “morality”.
I’m saying that he in fact didn’t mean “ethical injunction” in that context and also that his intended audience would not have believed that he was referring to that.
As for intent I’m guessing Asimov’s (and apparently yours judging by your example) is to interpret “sense of morals” as [a moral intuition Asimov (or wedrifid) disagrees with] and “doing what’s right” as [a moral intuition Asimov (or wedrifid) agrees with].
No, not remotely correct. You may note that the example explicitly mentions to two different values held by the actor and describes a particular way of resolving the conflict.
LW jargon. Neither Asimov nor the intended audience would necessarily make that distinction.
Not really once you consider where said intuitions come from.
The jargon introduction was yours, not Asimov’s or mine and your interpretation of his advice to be telling to people to ignore ethical injunctions is uncharitable as a reading of his intent and mistaken as a claim about the how the LW concept applies.
Yes, really. I don’t know what you are basing this ‘consideration’ on.
An example of following Asimov’s advice would be someone with strong moral sense that homosexuality is wrong but a strong egalitarian philosophy choosing to overcome the moral sense and refusing to stone the homosexual to death despite the instinctive and socially reinforced moral revulsion.
Yes, and I was using it to be technical, you seem to be trying to argue that Asimov couldn’t have meant “ethical injunction” since he wrote “morality”.
I didn’t say anything about his intent, I’m talking about how someone told to not let one’s “sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right” is likely to behave when attempting to act on the advice. As for intent I’m guessing Asimov’s (and apparently yours judging by your example) is to interpret “sense of morals” as [a moral intuition Asimov (or wedrifid) disagrees with] and “doing what’s right” as [a moral intuition Asimov (or wedrifid) agrees with].
I think you are the one mistaken. Remember the point at which an ethical injunction is most important is the point when disobeying it feels like the right thing to do.
Not everyone who speaks about morality automatically sinks down into nonsense and intuition, into the depths of accusations and praise for particular persons, however strange the language they use. Sometimes, speaking about morality means speaking about rationality, surviving and thriving, etc. It may be a mistake to think that Asimov was entirely ignorant of the philosophies this website promotes, given his work in science and the quotes one finds from his interviews, letters, and stories.
I never said anything otherwise. My point was that Asimov was trying to make a distinction between “morality” and “doing what’s right”. The implication being that thinking in terms of the latter will produce better behavior than thinking in terms of the former. My point is that this is not at all the case.
Using a technical term incorrectly then retorting with “LW jargon.” when corrected is either disingenuous or conceivably severely muddled thinking.
I’m saying that he in fact didn’t mean “ethical injunction” in that context and also that his intended audience would not have believed that he was referring to that.
No, not remotely correct. You may note that the example explicitly mentions to two different values held by the actor and describes a particular way of resolving the conflict.